i feel sad
the world going crazy
if keeping like this
World war 3 NOT IMPOSSIABLE
i feel sad
the world going crazy
if keeping like this
World war 3 NOT IMPOSSIABLE
The best comment I've seen about it so far on my other haunts: "Condi Rice is on a lush sofa in a darkened room, clutching a framed photo in her hands, one tear rolling down her cheek."
我只能用坑爹来形容。。。。昨天吃晚饭 CNN 报道 卡扎菲挂掉。。我一边吃着饭一边对着电视长达2个小时的报道，其间他暴力惨死图像时不时的出现！！尼玛真吓人，早上起来吃早饭接着出现接着吓人。。。真坑爹
跟当年惊闻 本.拉登 的死一样，诧异，愤怒又理所当然的接受了
"Strange that a media hungry Western public which, on the whole, condemns the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes at home, despite being carried out as a result of due process, can get so readily excited at the sight of extempore executions abroad."
Western media traditionally tend to shy away from photos of corpses compared to their Asian and Middle Eastern counterparts. I'm a Western journalist working for Eastern media, and I can assure you that the "it bleeds it leads" approach to newsmaking is not an exclusively Western phenomenon at all. I saw Gadhafi's corpse photos pop up as part of the news page of my TOM-Skype login. That's a Chinese source. I wouldn't see that from a mainstream Western news aggregator. I would have to search for it online.
Have you actually done a content analysis to back up the assertion that Western media consumers are especially bloodthirsty, or are you just talking out of your ass?
"I didn't say that Western media consumers are exclusively bloodthirsty but, given that it seems to be predominantly Westerners singing up the death"
Actually, it seemed to me that it was predominantly Libyans who were "singing up the death" (a phrase that sounds unequivocally bloodthirsty) when they dragged him out of a hole, beat him, paraded him through the streets, and killed him, while the Western media was just reporting on it.
Y'know. Doing their jobs.
But if you could actually point to examples of mainstream media outlets that aren't owned by Rupert Murdoch actually celebrating, I'd like to see it.
I never said I was a good journalist, but I am quite able to make comparisons between Western and Asian media on a daily basis. Maybe I'm a hack, but I do have what can modestly be called a privileged vantage point, since the state-controlled media expects very little from me. I have a lot of free time to make such observations.
"I was clearly pointing out the dichotomy between a Western public (and Western leaders) that dismisses the death penalty at home yet wholeheartedly embrace it abroad. "
I didn't miss your point; it was incredibly dull. For one thing, extrajudicial killings are not the same as the death penalty.
For another, a significant number of Westerners support the death penalty, and plenty would have preferred to have seen Gadhaffi go to trial instead of being torn apart by a mob. You're trying to accuse an entire hemisphere of hypocrisy when in reality there isn't clear agreement on either issue.
The West isn't a unitary cultural monolith. They support and oppose virtually nothing "wholeheartedly." Unlike Chinese people, who all unanimously agree that Mao was 70% right and 30% bald.
80 years ago: Arab dictators discovered there was oil in their countries
2011: Arab dictators discovered there were people in their countries
all my hero like Gadhafi 。。。。Latin 。。。die....偶的偶像死咧。。。
next the target of America?
Gadhafi had been a successful military commandar and contributed greatly to the liberation progress of Libya, by ending the feudalism history and implemented a fairly tolerant religious policy at his very young age, in terms of economy, he did a good job as well.
The people who killed him are the people he saved, after the death of Gadhafi , Libya is gonna suffer from long lasting regional turbulences and conflicts between different political powers. And more oil and gas projects are gonna be set up by energy giants as time goes, which will make more accountants, lawyers and investors richer and the locals poorer.
As a native of Libya said to the BBC:" At this point, we can't afford to be pessimistic" sure you can't but I agree with the gentleman above, it is very difficult to convince anyone that those brutal soilders dragged Gadhafi out and executed him without a trial could possibly run any "Western Style" democracy in the country.
Anyone who is selling the idea of "democracy against Gadhafi's dictatorship" is a retard. First of all, western countries don't have democracy in the true sense (Why shouldn't you drag David Cameron out and execute him since he bought his votes from the Liberal Democrat to be the Prime Minister?), secondly, dictatorship isn't necessary a bad thing for a country like Libya, either you are ruled by a wise dictator or a bunch of reckless brutal killers?
Anyone who believes that "A President Doesn't Kill" is a naive nympho. The rationale behind it is that apart from a few Westerns, most people are not regarded as humans, ergo, killing them is not classified as "murder", otherwise, too many other politicians are gonna be on death row.
You know what I feel disguisting the most in this part? The French Sarkozy who accepted a great deal of gifts and supports from Gadhafi then bombs the whole Libya while enjoying his teabreak, picking his nose, cheering about Gadhafi's death.
The loophole about 1984 is you only see other people's dilemma but you never see your own's.
This kind of news make me think that I should have studied architect. After war, now the foreign construction companies go there, like flies to the shit. And In these moments There are a lot of countries fucked by the war that need to be reconstructed. Seems a very good bussiness and also my morality would not be in conflict, help and reconstruct is a good thing. Even if my own country was who fucked the country and now reconstructs it, i can foolish myself about that truth.
Gaddafi's mistake was to order his military to violently put down his opposition at the stage when the demonstrations were still peaceful. That move gave hawkish Western politicians the moral capital to finance a military joint venture.
Imperialistic military endeavors in democratic countries are always prefaced by initial media reports of "terrorist attack against innocent people" or "foreign dictator kills own people."
My reaction to heavily industrialized warfare or arms production of any kind, because I'm a filthy hippy. I'd certainly catch a lot of shit from people in my neck of the woods if I expressed my suspicions about the motives of American political leaders.
Therefore, I acknowledge that the only way war is feasible for democratic countries is through the application of public relations techniques that are considerably more sophisticated than this petty nationalism that permits sweeping generalizations about "the West" irrespective of class and creed.
Ah, but you Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the White Man's culture.
@Persephone, Gadaffi was certainly preferable to the feudal assholes before him (and like Saddam Hussein, was a moderate secular socialist earlier in his political ascendancy), but it was his economic policies that eventually lead to his downfall (economies dependent upon only a single natural resource are prone to high unemployment and other instabilities).
@Edward, Go read some angry Anglophone Internet forums re: domestic death penalty for "child rapists" and you'll find that audience will be every bit as hyperbolic in their support of killin' the bastards.
On the other hand, "European leaders" do not "happily sanction the extrajudicial killing of an opponent," at least not in public, because it's not politically correct. In any case, you're certainly not "clearly talking in general terms about a public" when you're juxtaposing the elite administrators of the moral high ground against the filthy ignorant masses who create cartoons of Saddam, bin Laden and Gadaffi wearing BDSM fetish gear in hell.
You're comparing apples to oranges.